coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
3.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Bursa.
4.  In 2004 the General Directorate of Highways seized a plot of land belonging to the applicant without any formal expropriation, for the construction of a highway. The applicant brought an action before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain compensation for the de facto expropriation of his property. He requested 5,500 Turkish liras (TRY) as compensation from the court and reserved his right to increase this claim in due course.
5.  On 15 June 2006 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicant TRY 5,500 as compensation for the de facto expropriation of his land, as requested, plus interest. The applicant initiated execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain that amount (file no. 2009/2806).
6.  On 13 March 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
7.  The applicant subsequently brought an additional action (“ek dava”) before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain further compensation for his land in the light of the expert report obtained during the previous proceedings, which had valued the land at a rate higher than that initially requested by him.
8.  On 24 May 2007 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicant TRY 59,568.50, plus interest. The applicant initiated another set of execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain the amount awarded (file no. 2007/6188).
9.  On 23 October 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Karacabey Civil Court.
10.  On 24 March and 13 November 2009 the administration paid TRY 8,923 and 92,113 respectively in respect of the debt arising from the actions before the Bursa Execution Office.
11. According to the information provided by the applicant, there has been no outstanding debt in the execution files.
3.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Bursa.
4.  In 2004 the General Directorate of Highways seized a plot of land belonging to the applicant without any formal expropriation, for the construction of a highway. The applicant brought an action before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain compensation for the de facto expropriation of his property. He requested 5,500 Turkish liras (TRY) as compensation from the court and reserved his right to increase this claim in due course.
5.  On 29 December 2005 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicant TRY 5,500 as compensation for the de facto expropriation of his land, as requested, plus interest. The applicant initiated execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain that amount (file no. 2006/2198).
6.  On 29 May 2006 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
7.  The applicant subsequently brought an additional action (“ek dava”) before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain further compensation for his land in the light of the expert report obtained during the previous proceedings, which had valued the land at a rate higher than that initially requested by him.
8.  On 2 November 2006 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicant TRY 93,491, plus interest. The applicant initiated another set of execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain the amount awarded (file no. 2009/2816).
9.  On 13 March 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Karacabey Civil Court.
10.  On 20 and 24 March 2009 the administration paid TRY 789,091 and 142,079 respectively to the files before the Bursa Execution Office. According to the information provided by the applicant, there has been no outstanding debt in the execution files.
3.  The applicants were born in 1927 and 1933 respectively and live in Bursa.
4.  In 2004 the General Directorate of Highways seized a plot of land belonging to the applicants without any formal expropriation, for the construction of a highway. The applicants brought an action before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain compensation for the de facto expropriation of their property. They requested 5,500 Turkish liras (TRY) as compensation from the court and reserved their right to increase this claim in due course.
5.  On 22 June 2006 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicants TRY 5,500 as compensation for the de facto expropriation of their land, as requested, plus interest. The applicants initiated execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain that amount (file no. 2009/2799).
6.  On 13 March 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
7.  The applicants subsequently brought an additional action (“ek dava”) before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain further compensation for their land in the light of the expert report obtained during the previous proceedings, which had valued the land at a rate higher than that initially requested by them.
8.  On 24 May 2007 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicants TRY 34,529, plus interest. The applicants initiated another set of execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain the amount awarded (file no. 2007/6186).
9.  On 16 October 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Karacabey Civil Court.
10.  On 25 March and 13 November 2009 the administration paid TRY 8,878 and 53,411 respectively. According to the information provided by the applicants, there has been no outstanding debt in the execution files.
3.  The applicants were born in 1941, 1946 and 1948 respectively and live in Bursa.
4.  In 2004 the General Directorate of Highways seized a plot of land belonging to the applicants without any formal expropriation, for the construction of a highway. The applicants brought an action before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain compensation for the de facto expropriation of their property. They requested 6,500 Turkish liras (TRY) as compensation from the court and reserved their right to increase this claim in due course.
5.  On 16 November 2006 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicants TRY 6,500 as compensation for the de facto expropriation of their land, as requested, plus interest. The applicants initiated execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain that amount (file no. 2009/2793).
6.  On 13 March 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
7.  The applicants subsequently brought an additional action (“ek dava”) before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain further compensation for their land in the light of the expert report obtained during the previous proceedings, which had valued the land at a rate higher than that initially requested by them.
8.  On 10 May 2007 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicants TRY 158,626.30, plus interest. The applicants initiated another set of execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain the amount awarded (file no. 2007/6182).
9.  On 16 October 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Karacabey Civil Court.
10.  On 20 March 2009 the administration paid TRY 10,297.75. According to the information provided by the applicants, there has been no outstanding debt in the execution files.
6.  The first applicant, RJ Import Roger Jaeger A.G., is a commercial company located in Herrliberg, Switzerland. The second applicant, RJ Import Bucureşti S.A., located in Bucharest, Romania, is a subsidiary company of the first applicant who ownes 51 % of its shares.
7.  In 1997 the second applicant concluded with the State-owned company S.C. Craser S.A. (“Craser”) a purchasing contract for industrial equipment. The second applicant paid the price of the contract partly in money partly by buying a debt of the seller. By subsequent commercial transactions the creditor of the debt owed by the second applicant became the first applicant.
8.  By a final judgment of 16 April 2002 the Bucharest Court of Appeal annulled the 1997 contract finding that it had been concluded in breach of the law. At an unspecified date the second applicant had returned the equipment to the seller but the latter refused to return the price received.
9.  On 22 April 2004 the second applicant requested before the courts the reimbursement of the price paid according to the purchasing contract as well as the value of the investments subsequently incurred with respect to the equipment in question. On 17 November 2004 the Bucharest County Court obliged Craser to pay the second applicant 1,350,000 Swiss Francs as price of the contract, 35,994,375,000 Romanian Lei (ROL) as investments incurred and ROL 5,171,000 as court fees. The judgment became final on 2 December 2004 as it was not appealed against by the parties.
10.  On 9 July 2004 the first and second applicants requested before the courts the opening of bankruptcy proceedings against Craser. By a judgment of the Dolj County Court of 3 November 2004 the bankruptcy proceedings were commenced. On 27 April 2005 the Craiova Court of Appeal decided by a final judgment to include both applicants on the list of creditors: the first applicant with the debt it had bought and the second applicant with the amounts awarded by the judgment of 17 November 2004. According to the information submitted by the parties these proceedings are still pending before the domestic courts.
11.  Despite the applicants’ efforts, the judgment of 17 November 2004 remained non-enforced to date.
3.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Bursa.
4.  In 2004 the General Directorate of Highways seized a plot of land belonging to the applicant without any formal expropriation, for the construction of a highway. The applicant brought an action before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain compensation for the de facto expropriation of his property. He requested 5,500 Turkish liras (TRY) as compensation from the court and reserved his right to increase this claim in due course.
5.  On 15 June 2006 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicant TRY 5,500 as compensation for the de facto expropriation of his land, as requested, plus interest. The applicant initiated execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain that amount (file no. 2009/2810).
6.  On 13 March 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
7.  The applicant subsequently brought an additional action (“ek dava”) before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain further compensation for his land in the light of the expert report obtained during the previous proceedings, which had valued the land at a rate higher than that initially requested by him.
8.  On 24 May 2007 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicant TRY 36,896.75, plus interest. The applicant initiated another set of execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain the amount awarded (file no. 2007/6187).
9.  On 16 October 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Karacabey Civil Court.
10.  On 23 March and 13 November 2009 the administration paid TRY 8,920 and 53,081 respectively. According to the information provided by the applicant, there has been no outstanding debt in the execution files.
4.  The applicants were born in 1921, 1941, 1946, 1948 and 1946 respectively and lived in Bursa.
5.  In 2004 the General Directorate of Highways seized a plot of land belonging to the applicants without any formal expropriation, for the construction of a highway. The applicants brought an action before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain compensation for the de facto expropriation of their property. They requested 5,500 Turkish liras (TRY) as compensation from the court and reserved their right to increase this claim in due course.
6.  On 15 June 2006 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicants TRY 5,500 as compensation for the de facto expropriation of their land, as requested, plus interest. The applicants initiated execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain that amount (file no. 2009/2819).
7.  On 13 March 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
8.  The applicants subsequently brought an additional action (“ek dava”) before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain further compensation for their land in the light of the expert report obtained during the previous proceedings, which had valued the land at a rate higher than that initially requested by them.
9.  On 24 May 2007 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicants TRY 372,445.25, plus interest. The applicants initiated another set of execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain the amount awarded (file no. 2007/6190).
10.  On 16 October 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Karacabey Civil Court, however reduced the amount awarded to the applicants to TRY 340,949.81.
11.  On 26 March and 13 November 2009 the administration paid TRY 8,925 and 485,173 respectively to the files before the Bursa Execution Office. According to the information provided by the applicants, there has been no debt outstanding in the execution files.
3.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Bursa.
4.  In 2004 the General Directorate of Highways seized a plot of land belonging to the applicant without any formal expropriation, for the construction of a highway. The applicant brought an action before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain compensation for the de facto expropriation of his property. He requested 5,500 Turkish liras (TRY) as compensation from the court and reserved his right to increase this claim in due course.
5.  On 29 December 2005 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicant TRY 5,500 as compensation for the de facto expropriation of his land, as requested, plus interest. The applicant initiated execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain that amount (file no. 2006/2199).
6.  On 29 May 2006 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
7.  The applicant subsequently brought an additional action (“ek dava”) before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain further compensation for his land in the light of the expert report obtained during the previous proceedings, which had valued the land at a rate higher than that initially requested by him.
8.  On 2 November 2006 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicant TRY 561,050.75, plus interest. The applicant initiated another set of execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain the amount awarded (file no. 2009/2815).
9.  On 13 March 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Karacabey Civil Court.
10.  On 16 January 2009 the administration paid TRY 9,410.32 to file no. 2006/2199 before the Bursa Execution Office in respect of the debt arising from the initial action.
11.  Subsequently, on 19 March 2009 they paid TRY 789,091.92 to file no. 2009/2815 before the Bursa Execution Office in respect of the debt under the additional action. According to the information provided by the applicant, there has been no outstanding debt in the execution files.
4.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk.
5.  On 6 June 2005 he lodged a civil claim with the Amur‑Nyzhnyodniprovskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (“the District Court”) against three companies, by which he sought the cancellation of the car purchase contract and claimed damages.
6.  On 30 June 2010 the court partly allowed the claim.
7.  On 8 November 2010 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the above judgment. On 16 March 2011 the Higher Specialized Civil and Criminal Court quashed the above decisions and remitted the case to the District Court for fresh examination, before which the proceedings are still pending.
8.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the applicant specified his claim on eight occasions. Nine hearings in the District Court were adjourned, mainly due to the respondents’ absence or upon their requests or due to the electricity blackouts in the court premises. Following the respondents’ requests, the District Court ordered five expert examinations, which lasted in total for about three years and four months. The applicant additionally informed that on 1 June 2011 the District Court ordered yet another expert examination.
4.  The applicants were born, respectively, in 1949 and 1946 and live in Zaporizhzhya.
5.  On 18 September 2000 Mrs F. lodged a claim with the Leninskyy District Court of Zaporizhzhya (“the Leninskyy Court”) against the applicants, requesting it to determine how the parties should use their adjacent plot of land.
6.  On 11 January 2002 the court delivered a judgment. On 8 April 2002 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld it. On 16 October 2002 the Supreme Court quashed both decisions and remitted the case for fresh consideration.
7.  On 11 July 2005 the Leninskyy Court delivered a judgment. On 8 December 2005 the Court of Appeal amended it. On 13 December 2006 the Supreme Court quashed both decisions and remitted the case for fresh consideration.
8.  On 19 October 2007 the Leninskyy Court rejected the claim of Mrs F. as unsubstantiated. On 20 May and 26 November 2008, respectively, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld that judgment.
9.   According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings eight hearings were adjourned due to the applicants’ or all parties’ absence or following the applicants’ requests. The applicants disagreed stating that they had attended all hearings. Nineteen hearings were adjourned mainly due to the absence of other parties, absence of a judge or an expert or because the courts needed to collect additional documents. Four forensic examinations were ordered and lasted for about one year.
10.  On 10 October 2000 the applicants lodged a claim with the Leninskyy Court against Mrs F., seeking the elimination of obstacles in using the impugned plot of land. On an unspecified date Mr and Mrs E. joined the proceedings as co-respondents.
11.  Between 5 October 2001 and 16 January 2006, 14 November 2006 and 31 January 2007 and between 22 February 2007 and 5 June 2008 the proceedings were suspended pending the outcome of the first set of the proceedings. Between 1 June and 14 October 2006 the proceedings were suspended with a view to allowing the successors of Mr and Mrs E., who had died in January and April 2006, to take part in the case.
12.  On 25 June 2009, following a friendly settlement reached by the parties, the Leninskyy Court discontinued the proceedings. The applicants did not appeal against that decision.
13.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings three hearings were adjourned due the applicants’ or all parties’ absence or following the applicants’ request. Two hearings were adjourned due to the respondent’s absence. One forensic examination was ordered and lasted for about four months.
4.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Kirovograd.
5.  On 2 June 1998 he was arrested on suspicion of robbery. He remained in detention throughout the major part of the proceedings against him. The applicant states, without providing any supporting documents, that during the first days of his detention unspecified police officers beat him. He also states that the police rejected his representative’s request to send him for medical examination.
6.  Following the completion of the pre-trial investigation, on 19 December 1998 the case was referred to the Leninskyy District Court of Kirovograd (“the District Court”), which on 17 July 2001 delivered the judgment. On 2 April 2002 the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld it. On 12 November 2002 the Supreme Court quashed it and remitted the case for fresh consideration.
7.  On 24 December 2004 the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. It rejected, as unsubstantiated, his complaint about beating in police custody.
8.  On an unspecified date the applicant’s representative lodged a complaint with the same court alleging that some of the court hearings had not been tape-recorded. On 24 May 2005 the court informed him that they had not been recorded because the tape recorder had been broken.
9.  On 19 May 2005 and 2 February 2006, respectively, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 24 December 2004.
10.  On 14 August 2007 the applicant was released on parole.
11.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the investigators brought charges against five other persons and interrogated thirty seven witnesses and seven aggrieved parties; the courts heard five co‑defendants, twenty four witnesses and six aggrieved parties. This took the authorities about three months in total. Six hearings were adjourned due to the absence of the applicant’s representative, which delayed the proceedings to three months and ten days. Thirty two hearings were adjourned mainly due to the absence of the witnesses, the aggrieved parties, other co-defendants or their representatives or following their requests, as well as due to the absence of the judge or the prosecutor. Thirteen times the courts applied compulsory summonses on the witnesses and aggrieved parties which repeatedly failed to appear. Thirteen expert examinations were carried out, their overall duration amounting to approximately seven months.
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Balıkesir.
5.  The applicant is a doctor.
6.  On 23 November 1998, another doctor, V.B., brought a case against the applicant before the Ayvalık Civil Court, requesting compensation for defamation. V.B. alleged that the applicant had diffused false information among his patients to the effect that he had been selling a certain unauthorised medicine. V.B. relied on a note obtained from a certain patient A.S., in which the name of the medicine, as well as his name and work address were written. According to the plaintiff, this note was written by the applicant in order to damage his reputation.
7.  In the course of the proceedings, the court heard statements from several witnesses such as doctors and nurses working at the health centre, who confirmed V.B.’s account of the facts. In particular, some of the witnesses submitted that they had seen A.S. with this note.
8.  At the hearing on 8 June 2000 the applicant admitted having written the name of the medicine on the paper, but denied having written the other notes.
9.  It appears from the case file that the applicant did not request the court to hear A.S. during the proceedings.
10.  On 4 February 2003 the court, on the basis of the witness testimonies as well as the statements given at the hearing of 8 June 2000, found it established that the applicant had directed the patients towards V.B. and therefore ordered the applicant to pay compensation.
11.  On 11 March 2003 the applicant appealed. In his appeal petition, the applicant submitted inter alia that the trial court had failed to hear evidence from A.S.
12.  On 10 July 2003, finding the judgment of the first instance court in line with domestic law, the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s appeal.
13.  On 29 March 2004 the Court of Cassation dismissed a request by the applicant for rectification of the judgment.